brlenox
-
Posts
296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by brlenox
-
There is certainly a level of participant in these debates that is well informed in both science and theology and they are simply in the process of cataloging the obvious information and indications of both disciplines. Call it 10%...however, most in this debate are neither truly, genuinely in possession of any degree of expertise in either model...but they think they are. Whatever the actual numbers may be, it is my opinion that the bulk of the discussion is being conducted by armchair scientists and wannabe theologians each declaring their preference for loyalty. The essence of my perspective is predicted upon the concept of opposition in all things. As great a vehicle as the Gospel is to bring mankind unto God, I wonder if Satan's rightful claim to opposition was not manifest in the theory of a man who stated of himself that "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." Independent though of his state of mind, those who have championed the theory as a whole do seem to have dubious distinction as men or women of limited worship of God. Not all, but a majority.
-
I think this is the entire relevance of the debate. It is not that we are ever going to be able to fill the holes on either side. Both choices require accepting a standard full of unknowns, unprovables, and undeniables. Each is rife with exceptions of merit to consider. However, both are clearly one thing that the other is not. The creation story as outlined in scriptural and related sources has a faith based requirement for its acceptance. The theories of science on the other hand are ostensibly predicated on a proof based priority. So polarizing is the issue that individuals feel compelled to choose one of these perspectives as the dominate acceptable perspective in which they claim confidence. Since neither is truly more validated than the other, the choice we make defines our personal priority. Some will choose in faith a creation priority and others will slide towards a preference of the evidences of a scientific priority. While some will disagree, I'm not comfortable with a choice to believe that both are overlapping scenarios. I suppose it is possible but for me if you choose both there is a leaning for most in that category, not all but most, of a priority of evidence to claim ones allegiance. That is what I believe the Lord might be most interested in determining.
-
Research ringwoodite and a global flood is not such an impossible consideration under the correct circumstances. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rare-diamond-confirms-that-earths-mantle-holds-an-oceans-worth-of-water/
-
I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, "What about the pre-Adamic people?" Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith. I asked. "What about the pre-Adamic people?" She replied, "Well, aren't there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?" I said, "Have you forgotten the scripture that says, 'And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also....' " (Moses 3:7.) I asked, "Do you believe that?" She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error. (Harold B. Lee, "First Presidency Message: Find the Answers in the Scriptures," Ensign, Dec. 1972, 2.)
-
-
zlllch, I have decided to embrace the holidays with a rousing case of the flu. A truly spiritual event, it has brought me to my knees several times and I find my thoughts are, for the moment, more readily found in the spiritual realms of thrones and worship of a fully engaging type. Please allow me a day or so to consider upon these things....
-
I'm not sure really how to approach this without coming off as an apologist. I guess I can only just say that what I am about to say is exactly how I understand these things personally with some insight as to what occurred when Mormon Doctrine was revised. This particular quote was the hot button of the first edition. That alone gives us a point from which to start our consideration. Elder McConkie is a man after my own heart, looking for precision and being bold enough to think he had the right and ability to interpret scripture. The quote however took a firestorm of abuse from those in the church who reacted to it's incendiary content. If you look at the above quotation from the first edition and compare it to the 1 Nephi 13 verse though, how does it stack up? The verse is discussing "A" church amongst "all other churches". This particular church, while one of many is nonetheless the worst and biggest of them all and at least one reason is addressed in verse 26 for why this one is considered abominable. That being they were in a position to alter scripture, either in teachings and perhaps later as they decided on what was to be considered scripture. The issue is they altered the message some how and manipulated the scriptures for the gain of this abominable church. In Elder McConkies first draft, I only see him naming "A" church among many that qualifies to meet the exact definition of the great and abominable church as defined in the scripture. He is not trying to be insulting - his priority is to be bold and specific where he can do so and he has nailed it on the head - of all the churches that are not the church of God the Roman Catholic church has to shoulder the burden of being the one who persecuted the saints and who desperately wanted to withhold scripture from the people because they knew that the wealth they were making by the sales of indulgences and a dozen other things where not scripturally supported. So from my perspective Elder McConkie and his definition are perfectly correct and accurate - a 5 foot level definition. Next enter the revisionists...as stated earlier this is a hot button which only encourages complete and utter alarm in response from members of the Great and Abominable Church. Missionaries won't even have a chance to spread the Gospel with some nations for how disparaging and blunt is Elder McConkies commentary. Elder Spencer W. Kimball was assigned by the first presidency to help Elder McConkie soften his tone and rewrite any identified definitions that were lacking in tact. The goal was to put a better face on it. They come up with the second quote which, removes the finger pointing to a particular institution and then lumps the ideology which is supported by 1 Nephi 13, into a less alarming and more generic, less accusatory effort. This reduced most of the potential for friction and perhaps helped the LDS church in it's work of great importance of proselyting catholic and other churches. So From my perspective the revisionists definition is perfectly correct and accurate. It is what the final product should have been for different reasons other than Elder McConkies requirement of precision in definition which now had to defer to the new 10,000 foot level understanding, which was far more appropriate for public dissemination. Both quotes are sustained in the verses in question but the different perspectives on tactful presentation were appropriate and correct and also match the contents of the verses in question. I'll try to finish tomorrow..this holiday planning and increased activity of the season is messing with my free time...
-
Just my thoughts for what it is worth. I wish it was all so easy as this makes it look. I believe it could be if it were not for an electronic age where sometimes we share private understandings when we might better be restrained. I often reflect on Joseph Smith sitting in a conference and remarking that he would love to teach the saints of the greater mysteries and other truths but he knew that they could not abide what he could teach. It becomes obvious to me that there is within the realm of our attainment information that one my grasp and another may not. Over the years, I have sought specifically to be taught some of the things that I think Joseph understood but could not speak to. In certain areas, such as understanding the atonement, I believe that has taken place. I have seen how people respond to simple clarifications of more precise understanding which one would think are simply benign insight adjustments and they go through the roof. Try to explain that paying the price for our sins was not a price exacted by our sinful behavior but was something way beyond that and people get all guishy faced on saying over and over that the scriptures say he paid the price for our sins. Yes, yes they do but how that was accomplished they can't get to because their fear of learning gets in the way. What is important to me is that usually when we get private interpretations, what reveals them more than anything is not always the actual doctrine under discussion but can it be circumscribed into the one great whole. The checks and balances of adjacent gospel principles ofttimes is all that has to be explored to excise an errant thought. D&C 19 is very instructive in this principle. Now again I realize I am commenting on some material that I do not have experience with. You folks do and perhaps it has been vetted and a consensus reached of error. Perhaps in time I will run into this material but I suspect it will not be so shocking if I can track through valid witnesses of God, and scripture how the individual reached their conclusions.
-
I would appreciate that opportunity.
-
This is tragic...I had a response well underway and then lost the whole of it in a cyber blink...very frustrating. Anyway I have some things I have to get to so will not try to recreate at this time. One thing Is, If you do not mind I would appreciate if you copied the exact two quotes that you want to analyze in to a post as I did not provide two Mormon Doctrine quotes in my list and I presume you must be referencing something from the link I provided or elsewhere. As far as over stepping bounds...I have none. That's part of my problem with some folks is I am hoping they can be as candid with me as I am with them and maintain decorum in genuine and thoughtful conversation. If you can handle me saying something is completely wrong and illustrating why I think so with legitimate sources then I can handle twice that. I am impossible to offend. We do have some fundamental differences in how we view apostles and prophets and how we evaluate their positions on things which completely alters our learning styles. That's what I was writing up when my PC betrayed me. I can't get back to it at the moment but later when I get your quotes I will work it in as it is very germane to our process of evaluation. Thanks much...
-
First, I would like to say how much I appreciate that you can talk head on in a frank discussion of strong disagreement and maintain your composure and not take this to a personal level. That has become so rare and my first experience on this forum with a couple of other blokes left me wondering if that was possible. I knew the Elder McConkie quote was going to be the big derailer as for whatever reason people have such trouble with his and his Father in Laws precise and clear definitions. However, if I can I would like to disabuse you of the issues in Mormon Doctrine and the cause of the uproar. There were two apostles appointed to do the review of Mormon doctrine - Mark E. Peterson who tended to not be supportive and Marion G. Romney who tended to be supportive. One of the big issues with the text as determined by Elder Peterson was the copious references to the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Elder McConkie was years ahead of his time in believing that the RLDS had not made any changes to Joseph Smiths efforts. However, as the RLDS held the original manuscript the church had no way to validate the text that the RLDS printed. The vast majority of the "errors" counted in Mormon Doctrine are any and all references to the Joseph Smith Translation of the bible. Today, now that through the efforts of Matthews we have actually seen the original manuscript and found the RLDS were true to Joseph's translation. Thus the huge number touted as errors in the text during the review completely evaporate now that we have sanctioned the use of the Joseph Smith Translation. This is off of the top of my head, from a memory in decline ... so subject to verification this is my recollection. ( Note a google search has located a source that speaks to this issue with far more exactness than my memory. It is a better defense over all and provides insight concerning the nature of the disagreement and how it was overcome. http://ndbf.net/002k/ is the location. As to the other part of your response I would like to look at that tomorrow after I get whatever sleep I can muster this evening. And again I appreciate your congenial spirit in light of my very direct challenge to your material. I still think you are very far off base in your interpretation but your heart is right on in how you portray your maturity in discussion.
-
It would be an interesting debate for you and I to work through your first observation. You have to leap over so many references of prophetic origin that the real issue would appear that you have discounted voices of value in support of self - affirmation. However, what you believe as stated would not be apostasy in my mind simply an error in reading and in understanding but perhaps how you dismiss the prophets and apostles might be a point of concern. Pending actual examples, I am just going to leave this alone for now. I understand where you are coming from on the scriptural sources for the Adam / God considerations and again cannot class that as apostate. I have studied the Adam God material for years but still do not feel I have the level of understanding necessary to discount any of it or to approve wholeheartedly. I do believe Brigham Young deserves the right to be heard out at a time when he can explain his precise intent - I think few are qualified to speak for him.
-
.
-
Is there somewhere on this forum where you elucidate on " our view of the plan of salvation has flaws" and also the concept of our physical bodies being literal offspring of God. I would like to understand what you are actually saying as opposed to trying to grasp any meaning from these two sound bites.
-
How tragic. At this point I would not of supposed it to be so. But upon these cautions I shall observe more closely. It is clear he is knowledgeable and I appreciate people who go to the lengths required to be classed as such. I also understand the pitfalls that lead those of intellect away from the gospel. Thanks for your insight.
-
Beautifully done. I really like the answer. I disagree with it but you have raised several associations that give this a feel of reasonableness and might cause one to reconsider their stance. As Aggrippa "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." ...but not quite. I do appreciate your willingness here and I do not want to be perceived as disparaging your observations. They really are compelling, you have a capacity for intelligent and persuasive presentation of your ideas. But I feel like you are conforming to a standard of definition that is influenced by an excessive priority for generosity and kindness as a measurement of imbalanced superiority. What I am going to do is show you how come I believe this. First, I am careful with certain types of observations - It is as you say all about how we define the church of God and the church of the devil. However, for such a critical definition should we rely upon personal talent in locution or should we build a set of sources that might inform our own prejudices so that we do not fall prey the tutelage of an era or period of time in social instruction. Your whole premise falls upon defining the Church of the Devil and the Church of God. If I was going to build a definition I would consider observations such as these: If this was my own personal study I would have pages of every quote, every scripture, every anecdotal story I could find that spoke to the subject I was researching because I do not care what I believe at the moment before I do my research I simply want to know the truth. However, I don't want to tax anyone more than I normally do so let's just examine these 5 references. If I put it in simplest terms there is a pretty clear definition from Elder McConkie, Christ, Joseph Smith, and Elder Jackson. It contains elements of what you say but it puts into perspective that even though there may be some good in these other organizations it does not alter their final summation as the church of the devil. It should also be clear as to what might constitute the church of God - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints seems the only one that can fit that bill according to these 5 sources. I stop here as I do have tendency to go on and on but I think this is adequate to make the point.
-
Are we sure he is not just pulling your chain? At least I hope so. I do not remember much of his material over the years and this is recent exposure for me now but I didn't get Denver Snuffer out of what I read...until now...
-
However, have you refuted anything? 1 Nephi is very clear in the delineation it provides as to what is the church of the devil. It is a true observation and part of scripture. We can't just ignore what it says because we prefer to find another verse that we wish to interpret according to some other paradigm. Your verses from Moroni are equally true therefore they cannot mean anything that robs 1 Nephi 14 of its truth. They may and do speak to a different truth that needs to be respected and put into the picture in such a way to preserve the truth of other verses that are also true. We shouldn't impugn the integrity of one scripture by citing another as if the second set of verse is superior in truth than the first. Honestly look at the objective you are trying to accomplish. Is it not to negate the clarity of 1 Nephi by obscuring it with another scripture that is better suited to your interpretations of the better way? Let's try an experiment, go back to 1 Nephi 14 and tell me what it says to you. Don't try to find someway around it and don't feel the need to defend any of the discussion that we are having. Just tell me what possibilities can be derived from 1 Nephi 14 that isn't influenced by this discussion here...then we can go back to your verses and integrate them to our overall picture.
-
For me the issue is the presumption that God needs us to define "areas of the gospel we feel are needing attention to fix errors." Where the apostles and prophets take the hit for being the instigators of needed change, I find that to be a false supposition. The lowest denomination is self. If we want to change something it needs to be there. If the Lord sees our efforts and considers the example we manifest of significance he will put you somewhere to expand on that standard. Here on this thread we have talked much about the evolutionary possibilities that many feel portend to the development of man. Perhaps the more vital ones are the evolutionary possibilities that speak to the nature of a living organism of a different type. The gospel, the church, the membership, the leadership, the scriptures all are integral elements of the body of the Kingdom of God. I personally feel a life force that ebbs and flows and magnifies and digresses just as we see in any organism. Most of that relates to the nature of the membership aspect of the body of the kingdom. Perhaps you missed the Brigham story above but he says several thing of profound insight. One is this comment here: We see the same principle approached in Alma 12:9 where the Lord talks about taking truths or the understanding of truths away from his children because they harden their hearts, but rewarding with understanding those that do not harden their hearts. If in time they should become sufficiently hardened then they are led down to destruction. What would this look like if it were not just scripture speak but the body of the church or a large portion of it were becoming hardened in their hearts. You would need to notify no one as the natural forces that come to bear would find the body of the church diminished in their understandings of the mysteries of God. Thus we see after a period of social indoctrination of a generation or so a growing body of members that judge the leadership of the church on a Babylonian context of inclusion of all peoples for the attitudes towards the LGBTQW community. And even in the midst of a manifest effort to preach that these are sinful children of God no different than the rest of us and to be loved and taught as any other, a mystery will be diminished in understanding and many will claim a fast moving victory is imminent in "areas of the gospel we feel are needing attention to fix errors." As Brigham points out it is in response to the attitudes of the body of the saints that the organism of the church is moved upon by the forces of God. We have seen of the past few years some areas of expansion and of late we have seen many of the mysteries taken from the body...and most don't even notice but herald and applaud responses designed to reduce auto rejection of the gospel from social conditioning so that we do not offend before someone even has a chance to consider upon the gospels other messages pertaining to salvation. This is all part and parcel of the evolving nature of a living organization. I could go on and on in developing this commentary but I suspect it will not merit that much attention.
-
These are fine sentiments and I concur but you have missed the point of my commentary which was initiated on the Brigham Young story which has perfectly informed you against the underlying motivations that appear in your defenses.
-
I don't really think there is much need for discussion on these points. I understand completely with what you are saying, but I also think you understand the scriptural references that define my position of emphasis as it relates to your position of emphasis. One could argue that if God's plan embraces a central perspective of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man that it matters very little how close a religious body comes to any manifest charitable behaviors as part of their existence. If salvific ordinances is the only distinction of significance and "that's it" but it is after all referred to as a plan of salvation then it might bear greater recognition that salvific ordinances are the required means by which the Lord achieves the ultimate desires he has for his children of salvation in eternal life. That those who partake of the ordinances of salvation are required to be charitable is not the same as saying that those who become charitable achieve the benefits of the ordinances of salvation. This is my work and my glory defined as "to bring about the charitable natures of godliness in the children of God" might sound a bit lofty but it leaves us all short of his glory. If you are a purest, and I believe you to be so, it surprises me to see you slide a little to the left to what I would believe to be a personal interpretation or expectation of the gospel which is perhaps excessively influenced by a socially informed graciousness, while stepping over 1 Nephi 14:10: If in the process of association with your small Methodist church any one of them benefits from the association in your charitable efforts and sees the rest of the light that hopefully shines from your efforts then, then there is joy to be had in your efforts if they find their way to those salvific ordinances.
-
The religions are of the devil - most of the people are not. Although this is a different arena than I perceived this discussion moving, I find far too many nuances that define the changes we see to take the time to discuss them. Sufficeth to say, that in the least as we move towards a day when we anticipate the reestablishment of Zion that we should see behaviors which lend themselves to understanding how Zion can be reestablished.
-
From Brigham Young: It is folly in the extreme for persons to say that they love God, when they do not love their brethren; and it is of no use for them to say that they have confidence in God, when they have none in righteous men, for they do not know anything about God. It is reasonable for the Elders of Israel to be very sanguine and strenuous on this point. And were I to be asked whether I have any experience in this matter, I can tell the people that once in my life I felt a want of confidence in brother Joseph Smith, soon after I became acquainted with him. It was not concerning religious matters—it was not about his revelations—but it was in relation to his financiering—to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook. A feeling came ever me that Joseph was not right in his financial management, though I presume the feeling did not last sixty seconds, and perhaps not thirty. But that feeling came on me once and once only, from the time I first knew him to the day of his death. It gave me sorrow of heart, and I clearly saw and understood, by the spirit of revelation manifested to me, that if I was to harbor a thought in my heart that Joseph could be wrong in anything, I would begin to lose confidence in him, and that feeling would grow from step to step, and from one degree to another, until at last I would have the same lack of confidence in his being the mouthpiece for the Almighty, and I would be left, as brother Hooper observed,upon the brink of the precipice, ready to plunge into what we may call the gulf of infidelity, ready to believe neither in God nor His servants, and to say that there is no God, or, if there is, we do not know anything about Him; that we are here, and by and by shall go from here, and that is all we shall know. Such persons are like those whom the Apostle calls “As natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed.” Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called “Mormonism.” He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them. It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still. If we have any lack of confidence in those whom the Lord has appointed to lead the people, how can we have confidence in a being whom we know nothing about? (John 4:20)It is nonsense to talk about it. It will weaken a person quicker to lose confidence in those who dictate the affairs of God's kingdom on the earth, than to say “I do not know whether there is a God or not, and I care nothing about Him.” A man or woman will not be prepared to be taken by the enemy, and led captive by the devil so quickly for disbelieving in a being they do not know about, as for disbelieving in those whom they do know. (Young, Brigham - He that Loveth Not His Brother Loveth Not God—If We Have Not Confidence in Our Leaders We Shall Not Have It in a Higher Power—The Church Holds the Keys of Salvation—The Providences of God to the Saints. JOD vol. 4, pp. 295-302)
-
President Uchtdorf speaks from a need to try to stem a swelling tide of arm chair critiques who have sidestepped proper behavior towards the Lords anointed. In other words, the topic is only being addressed because of the near constant banter of a generation that takes a bit too much upon themselves when it comes to evaluating the Lords servants. He is trying to mitigate their bad behavior by tossing them a bone and hoping they will step off and move on to less risky behavior - he is trying to save their eternal lives. You feel it is very important to remember the infallibility of man. That is true but, and I am not stating that you are like what I am about to describe but those like this do appear to be everywhere these days... Is it equally important to remind at every juncture that prophets and apostles make mistakes, to repeat ad nauseam pithy little phrases like a prophet is only a prophet? ... generally misquoted and improperly referenced for the sake of vaunting personal wisdom ahead of those that are much wiser and far surpass the spiritual capacity of those who feel the need to cast doubts upon those called of God. Are not the extreme of these the ones who under the banner of the faithful Mormon find themselves in the rafters at conference sounding their dissention in their votes of non-sustainment of the prophets and apostles. How often was it that President Uchtdorf stood at the podium seeking the voice of common consent when he was treated instead to the echoes of "NO!!" "No!!" "he's not my prophet". I think you misread President Uchtdorf entirely. He has suffered greatly for these acts of defiance which he has encountered. While not chronologically associated, his comments are correct, they are comments that he delivers for a reason. Do you ever wonder why a subject is treated in conference? In this case, as always there is a need for the saints to understand something - perhaps not what they think though. These are not instructions for you and I as to the weaknesses of men which should be self-evident. Instead couched in the cautious voice of a man who will not violate his position or your agency, full of love he is issuing a caution. In speaking to the obvious he is hoping to placate the spirit of dissention which is expanding amongst the saints for those few wise enough to listen. Do we really need a general authority to stand before us and remind us of the imperfections of fallen man or is he saying something far more significant? Is he talking about them? Or is he talking about us? After this post I will add to this message one of profound wisdom in the form of a story that Brigham Young tells. If you are good at extrapolating it will explain in it's entirely why I made the statement I made in my post where I described methods I use to try to prevent Satan from claiming my soul. It is the most significant thing you will read this day.
-
Certainly true of sharing too much on public forums. Frequently though as I learn new things, I realize knowing correctly is not always the pinnacle of judgement but instead the Lord is more pleased when we maintain our loyalties to him and his servants throughout the process.
